Clashing Confederations – Communists and Progressives Inside the Gate

In response to a comment in the previous post:

Sam Joyce again you are quite wrong about these political gangs not existing at the time of our founding. They most certainly did and Federalist 10 authored by James Madison is a paper written and devoted exclusively to how our Constitution was designed to limit the negative effects of these special interest groups. The paper is titled, “The Union as a Safeguard Against Domestic Faction and Insurrection.” It tells of these groups being neutered by a system that didn’t allow their ideas to be implemented on a national scale (such as we have ignored with everything from Social Security to Obamacare). It tells of these bad ideas being implemented only in localized areas and then having to stand the test of their own effectiveness. The bad ideas would be contained in small areas of their origination and die off as people abandoned them due to their consequences. The valid also contained by localization would only be able to spread by other local initiative, by choice after realization by observation of their positive effect.

Our Constitution was never intended to pledge or initiate any national mandate resulting from the ideas of one group being forced on all. This is what our system was meant to guard against and is the entire idea of a Constitutional Republic as opposed to a democracy. The rights of the minority (as in those with less power or means (as in the inborn)) are always protected from the mob rule of the majority, and this just as equally in the converse. It is therefore also intended to be the same guard against the corruption of government and those who would demagogue their way to power by promises of dictating (edict) once in power, to advantage minority groups using the federal power to implement policy favorable to them (such as redistribution of wealth by a progressive tax code).

From Federalist 10: “Hence, it clearly appears, that the same advantage which a republic has over a democracy, in controlling the effects of faction, is enjoyed by a large over a small republic,–is enjoyed by the Union over the States composing it. Does the advantage consist in the substitution of representatives whose enlightened views and virtuous sentiments render them superior to local prejudices and schemes of injustice? It will not be denied that the representation of the Union will be most likely to possess these requisite endowments. Does it consist in the greater security afforded by a greater variety of parties, against the event of any one party being able to outnumber and oppress the rest? In an equal degree does the increased variety of parties comprised within the Union, increase this security. Does it, in fine, consist in the greater obstacles opposed to the concert and accomplishment of the secret wishes of an unjust and interested majority? Here, again, the extent of the Union gives it the most palpable advantage.

“The influence of factious leaders may kindle a flame within their particular States, but will be unable to spread a general conflagration through the other States. A religious sect may degenerate into a political faction in a part of the Confederacy; but the variety of sects dispersed over the entire face of it must secure the national councils against any danger from that source. A rage for paper money, for an abolition of debts, for an equal division of property, or for any other improper or wicked project, will be less apt to pervade the whole body of the Union than a particular member of it; in the same proportion as such a malady is more likely to taint a particular county or district, than an entire State.”

We can (again) look at Federalist 1 wherein Alexander Hamilton tells of what the founder learned from history; that the liberties of other republics in history had most often been overturned by demagogues who came claiming to be the savoir of some group who was said to be deprived of some “right” that didn’t actually exist. That these men would stir up the masses against demons they create and uses this means to rise and gain power. It says these men begin as demagogues and end as Tyrants. The point Hamilton makes is the protection against this is a firm adherence to the founding principles of a well-formed Constitution such as ours, which he was arguing in favor of ratifying.

When Hamilton defines this decline into despotism it is stated as a matter of fact that all historical governments as a natural course had and do tent toward decline into despotism. His assessment based in history was that it is the least likely to happen under a government based in the principles compiled in our Constitution. The following quote from Federalist 1 is telling of this. The “latter” it speaks of is fidelity to our well-formed Constitution (well-reasoned). The “former” is speaking of men who come lurking behind the spurious mask of defending some nonexistent right (right to abortion or redistribution of wealth).

“History will teach us that the former has been found a much more certain road to the introduction of despotism than the latter, and that of those men who have overturned the liberties of republics, the greatest number have begun their career by paying an obsequious court to the people; commencing demagogues, and ending tyrants.”

Obsequious means an over-attentiveness obviously intended to gain favor. Merriam-Webster says the definition of demagogue is: “a leader who makes use of popular prejudices and false claims and promises in order to gain power.”

My recommendation is to read the Federalist papers and understand the most prominent principle in our constitution, as intended, is Equal Security of life, liberty and estate, no matter your position or proportion. These are the same principle found in the words of Christ as he told of the two greatest commandments. The First is fidelity to God, and the second is reciprocal security found in treating your neighbor as yourself. These two are inseparable and essential in effecting any civilization. Without them the opposite [chaos] is unavoidable.

The ideas (originally in the Constitution) prohibiting the confiscation and redistribution of wealth through as progressive tax code was attacked through the means mentioned above (demagogues and factions) and overthrown by the 16th amendment. It not only allowed for an income tax, but more insidiously annulled the Constitutional principle of all taxation being equally apportioned. This aspect of voting yourself other people’s property (money) is also addressed in Federalist 10 when it states the accepted understanding that no man can be a judge in his own case.

I will close with once again posting John Adams’ espousing the need for property protection as a necessity of civilized society. In the same defense he established the concurrence between the laws of God and our Constitution as each supporting the other in common intention.

John Adams, Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States
1787 Works 6:8–9

“Suppose a nation, rich and poor, high and low, ten millions in number, all assembled together; not more than one or two millions will have lands, houses, or any personal property; if we take into the account the women and children, or even if we leave them out of the question, a great majority of every nation is wholly destitute of property, except a small quantity of clothes, and a few trifles of other movables. Would Mr. Nedham be responsible that, if all were to be decided by a vote of the majority, the eight or nine millions who have no property, would not think of usurping over the rights of the one or two millions who have? Property is surely a right of mankind as really as liberty. Perhaps, at first, prejudice, habit, shame or fear, principle or religion, would restrain the poor from attacking the rich, and the idle from usurping on the industrious; but the time would not be long before courage and enterprise would come, and pretexts be invented by degrees, to countenance the majority in dividing all the property among them, or at least, in sharing it equally with its present possessors. Debts would be abolished first; taxes laid heavy on the rich, and not at all on the others; and at last a downright equal division of every thing be demanded, and voted. What would be the consequence of this? The idle, the vicious, the intemperate, would rush into the utmost extravagance of debauchery, sell and spend all their share, and then demand a new division of those who purchased from them. The moment the idea is admitted into society, that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. If “Thou shalt not covet,” and “Thou shalt not steal,” were not commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society, before it can be civilized or made free.”

Isaiah 8
9 Associate yourselves, O ye people, and ye shall be broken in pieces; and give ear, all ye of far countries: gird yourselves, and ye shall be broken in pieces; gird yourselves, and ye shall be broken in pieces.
10 Take counsel together, and it shall come to nought; speak the word, and it shall not stand: for God is with us.
11 For the Lord spake thus to me with a strong hand, and instructed me that I should not walk in the way of this people, saying,
12 Say ye not, A confederacy, to all them to whom this people shall say, A confederacy; neither fear ye their fear, nor be afraid.
13 Sanctify the Lord of hosts himself; and let him be your fear, and let him be your dread.
14 And he shall be for a sanctuary; but for a stone of stumbling and for a rock of offence to both the houses of Israel, for a gin and for a snare to the inhabitants of Jerusalem.
15 And many among them shall stumble, and fall, and be broken, and be snared, and be taken.
16 Bind up the testimony, seal the law among my disciples.
17 And I will wait upon the Lord, that hideth his face from the house of Jacob, and I will look for him.
18 Behold, I and the children whom the Lord hath given me are for signs and for wonders in Israel from the Lord of hosts, which dwelleth in mount Zion.
19 And when they shall say unto you, Seek unto them that have familiar spirits, and unto wizards that peep, and that mutter: should not a people seek unto their God? for the living to the dead?
20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.
21 And they shall pass through it, hardly bestead and hungry: and it shall come to pass, that when they shall be hungry, they shall fret themselves, and curse their king and their God, and look upward.
22 And they shall look unto the earth; and behold trouble and darkness, dimness of anguish; and they shall be driven to darkness.

Paid for by TimD2016 – Tim D’Annunzio for Congress – [email protected]